- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 15:40:15 +0100
- To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>, "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote: > On Apr 8, 2013, at 7:28 AM, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote: >> Even so that would still mean CSS will have this fragment identifier >> presence determines processing behavior bug. Clearly a new syntax >> should have been used for masks, e.g. mask(url)... > > We try to solve problems, not to create new. But this is a problem and it is new. > CSS Masking combines the existing mask syntax of SVG (with url()) with the existing prefixed mask-image/mask syntax in WebKit (and now Blink) based browsers. A simple way would be to download the resource and check the type then and proceed depending on the data type. Firefox people asked for a solution to verify on interpreting the property value / URI during parsing. That WebKit landed a security bug sounds like the source of the problem here. Does WebKit not consider this a security bug? (And that we suggested that particular solution, ewww.) -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 8 April 2013 14:40:50 UTC